[0xdeadb00f]

How about explain why you disagree? Instead of saying shit like that? Also I never called anyone a moron outright.

There is more to a political party than their stance on a single issue. If you can't see that then you are a moron. And yes, I did just call you that, outright.

[bobbytit]

What you are describing is a fake democracy. You are given the choice between two cheeks of the same arse. Don't be too quick to confuse stupidity with a difference of opinion.

[0xdeadb00f]

What I am describing is realistic. No independent will ever win. If that's a fake or flawed democracy so be it - I can't help that, it's out of my control. What is in my control is whether I get to pick the lesser of the two evils. The cheek that's slightly bigger, juicier.

[hndamien]

You have a preferential voting system, not the lesser of two evils.

[0xdeadb00f]

But you understand that no independent will ever win right? That isn't realistic.

It is technically preferential and sure, it could happen, but none of the independents have, or will ever have enough of a following to win a federal election.

Also, for the record. I don't choose either of the two evils as my number one pick when I vote. I always do choose the party I think is best for this country privacy wise. But sadly, they will never win a federal election.

[hndamien]

Theoretically an independent could get enough support to form a party that could win. My point is that at least the system is structured that such an outcome could happen over time, or that the process of this happening forces major parties to adapt to the prevailing winds against their ideologies. In a strict two party system you get systematic pressure towards polarisation, rather than a more bumpy road to some sort of consensus that is apparently easily manipulated by media.